Three of the young black men in 4WD were lucky enough not to be hurt at all. The fourth, 17-year-old Jordan Davis, sat in the back seat dead or dying from three gunshot wounds. The young men had tried to escape, but Dunn, a gun collector, kept firing into their car as they fled.

The boys drove to hospital where Davis was pronounced dead. Dunn went to his hotel room with his girlfriend and ordered a pizza.

On Saturday night in Florida an exhausted jury told the judge that after 30 hours of deliberations over four days they had come to a verdict on some of the charges Dunn faced, but were deadlocked on the main one. They could not agree that he was guilty of first-degree murder. On that count alone a mistrial was declared.

Intimidated by the "thug music": Michael Dunn was found guilty on some charges, but the jury was deadlocked on the main charge of first-degree murder. Photo: Reuters

Kruzshander Scott, president of the Jacksonville section of the National Council of Negro Women, was among the crowd waiting outside the court for the verdict, the Associated Press reported. "I am scared to death because unless these laws are checked or changed for the benefit of all, it's not going to change. We are going to repeat this same story over and over," she said.

Advertisement

She is right. Floridians might be struck by the brutality of Jordan’s death but they cannot claim to be surprised that a jury could not convict his killer of murder.

This is the state where the stand your ground law written by the National Rifle Association protected George Zimmerman from conviction for shooting 17-year-old Trayvon Martin dead as he walked home with a packet of Skittles and a bottle of iced tea.

This is the state where Curtis Reeves shot 43-year-old Chad Oulson dead in a cinema after they argued about Oulson’s texting. A newly released autopsy report shows a bullet grazed Oulson’s wrist before it hit him in the throat. The injury to the wrist is thought to be a defensive wound, as though in the instant before he was shot Oulson tried paw the bullet out of the air.

In each of these cases the killers used the stand your ground law as a defence, either explicitly or implicitly.

Zimmerman, a neighbourhood watch volunteer, followed Martin in his car because he thought the boy was suspicious. After he shot him dead he told police they had become involved in a fight and he feared for his life. Police took him at his word and he was not even charged with a crime for six weeks.

Acquitted: George Zimmerman. Photo: Reut

His lawyers did not raise the stand your ground law in court, but they did not need to, the judge explained in instructions to the jury.

After shooting Oulson in the cinema Reeves told police he had “reason to believe [Oulson] was going to kick my ass”. He remains in jail awaiting trial.

Dunn told police he was intimidated by the “thug music” playing in the car Jordan was sitting in. During his trial he claimed Davis raised a shotgun and pointed it at him. No other witnesses saw a shotgun and none was found. The prosecution asked why, if the boys had a shotgun, they did not fire it.

Shot and killed: Trayvon Martin. Photo: AP

Florida’s stand your ground law extends the so-called castle doctrine – which allows people to use lethal force to protect themselves in their homes – into the public domain. Where once people who feared for their safety had to first seek to retreat before using lethal force, they may now legally shoot first.

Zimmerman’s acquittal and Dunn’s mistrial are not glitches in stand your ground law, but the law’s very intent.

Since Florida introduced the law in 2005 it has spread via the conservative campaign organisation the American Legislative Exchange Council to nearly two dozen states. It is impossible to know whether these scared and angry men shot strangers because they were aware of the law and felt protected by it, but research by Texas A&M University shows that in states with stand your ground homicides have increased by up to 9 per cent.

The NRA believes the greatest danger to Americans are what it calls “gun free zones”, places where it is illegal to carry guns. The group is working hard and successfully to eradicate these zones, places like schools, churches, bars and restaurants. But the organisation seems to believe that there is no point in arming citizens if citizens don’t feel comfortable using their weapons.

Jordan’s father Ron Davis has no doubt the law failed his boy.

“[Jordan] was a good kid. It wasn’t allowed to be said in the court room, but we’ll say it. He was a good kid,” he said after the mistrial. “There are a lot of good kids out there ... They should have a voice. They shouldn’t have to live in fear … that if they get shot, it’s just collateral damage.

"We do not accept a law that would allow collateral damage to our family members ... We expect the law to be behind us, and protect us. That’s what I wanted the law to do — to protect Jordan as we protected Jordan.”

125 comments so far

Very sad. The US will lock someone up for protesting for free health care or some other weird thing but you can shoot someone with malice and go home for dinner with no consequences??? And this country want to spread their light to the world and invade countries to instill their way and their worldview. They have learnt nothing since Paul Robeson. If the victim was white and accused black it would be a different story. Stand your ground only applies to white right wing protestants. This law is giving people not a right to defend themselves but a right and precedent to be a vigilante and act in malice - not in fear of your life. Seems this accused must have a wire loose if some loud music from a car sets him off. Sadly, they see hollywood movies where rounds are fired all over the place and no-one gets killed.but in real life it is very different. 10 rounds??? how is that not malice and intent?

Commenter

truth

Date and time

February 17, 2014, 6:09AM

"If the victim was white and accused black it would be a different story. Stand your ground only applies to white right wing protestants." And there is the crux of the problem, bigotry. Many people say that here, the reverse is true. Here, you can kill a man on Xmas day with a cricket bat and only receive a slap on the wrist. Let's try to keep obvious prejudice out of the equation. The law is an ass, not the skin colour.

Commenter

Gazzatone

Date and time

February 17, 2014, 8:29AM

I've lived in America & can tell you the 'white man' has very few rights left there, even when it comes to the basic right of being able to defend himself if his life is in danger. Due to rampant political correctness the balance has tipped and legal protection has tipped to the minorities. So for example, we don't hear such outcries from the many killings of blacks on whites, it's only when a 'white man' kills a black that there's total outrage & the hunt for blood..

Commenter

tricia

Date and time

February 17, 2014, 9:17AM

Tricia, on what planet is it OK to shoot unarmed kids for playing loud music?

Commenter

bryan currie

Location

melbourne

Date and time

February 17, 2014, 11:02AM

Tricia, you must have lived in a very special place if that's your view. Perhaps it's because black people don't get to avail themselves of these absurd and outrageous laws on supposed 'self defence'? In any case, as amateur of principle, no person should be permitted to shoot or injure anyone unless they are, (a) unable to retreat from a real and clear threat and (b) that they are, in fact not fantasy, in real/reasonable danger of being significantly harmed. We manage that kind of distinction here in Australia and funny enough not many people kill others using such an excuse. These cases in the US are also encouraging people to place themselves in a position where they then say they are in fear of their lives. Oh and hey, instead of carrying on like an moron and picking a fight, in a public place with people who are doing no more than playing music loud, he should've pulled his dopey head in, filled his tank and driven off to whatever paranoid fantasy land he calls home.Lastly, I must say, I find your comment on this to be quite ugly in its stereotyping and blanket in your conclusions. Killing kids, or indeed anybody, is ok because fearful, self entitled fools take on the role of judge, jury and executioner? Disgraceful. If it wasn't for the NRA there wouldn't be so many guns around of which to be afraid, on either side of the equation.

Commenter

Warwick

Date and time

February 17, 2014, 11:35AM

Just our of interest does anyone know the stats for blacks killed by whites versus whites killed by blacks in the US?

Commenter

Frank

Location

Perth

Date and time

February 17, 2014, 12:58PM

I lived in Detroit where black on white crime is all too common. In fact, a young Australian man was gunned down there not all that long ago for no good reason other than that he happened to be a white landlord. Did white America get outraged then? Did you?

Commenter

tricia

Date and time

February 17, 2014, 1:04PM

And certain groups within Australia want similar laws, no gun control and the right to shoot first.

Commenter

Brian of Narangba

Location

Qld

Date and time

February 17, 2014, 6:21AM

Some people like me predicted that with liberalization of gun laws that every hot-head would then have the opportunity to resort to gunplay over some minor irritation. So far in Florida we have had people killed for wearing a hoodie, texting in the movies and playing their music too loud. Looks like the doomsayers were right. Does anyone think "stand your ground" is a good idea?

Commenter

Florida Blows

Location

Outtathere

Date and time

February 17, 2014, 6:36AM

"Does anyone think it's a good idea?" Not sure if this is a troll but... I'm not sure I could defend it in all it's complexity but I must admit the idea that you have the right to defend yourself (not necessarily with a gun) in anticipation of attack has merit. Our laws state that you can use appropriate force but what and when is appropriate force? You're walking along the street and your harassed by a gang of youths do you run away, so much for our rights, or just hope they don't have knives? I guess what I'm saying is an armed society is a polite society (a quote from Robert A. Heinlein) and perhaps if there was a fear of consequences people might consider others and wouldn't text in a theater or inflict their "gang Music" on others. And yes there's flaws in my logic but there is also a growing problem in our society that the bleeding hearts seem unable or unwilling to address.